Kevin Tsujihara appeared Tuesday at the annual gathering of theater owners to tout the studio's upcoming slate, including the stand-alone, which Affleck will star in and direct.

Warner Bros. chairman and CEO Kevin Tsujihara confirmed Tuesday his studio is moving ahead with Ben Affleck's stand-alone Batman movie, which the actor will star in and direct.

The studio mogul touched on the movie when appearing at CinemaCon, the annual gathering of cinema operators in Las Vegas. He touted the record-opening of Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, which teams Batman (Affleck) and Superman (Henry Cavill) on the big screen for the first time and launches the DC cinematic universe.

"It set up a great foundation for our DC slate, which includes at least 10 movies through 2020," Tsuijhara said. "I'm also excited to know that we will be working with Ben Affleck on a stand-alone Batman movie."

This isn't the first time the prospect of an Affleck-originated Batman movie has been raised. During San Diego Comic-Con last year, The Hollywood Reporter reported that the actor-director was developing a stand-alone Batman project with DC Entertainment chief creative officer Geoff Johns.

And in a recent THR interview with WME-IMG's co-CEOs Ari Emanuel and Patrick Whitesell, Whtesell reveals how many movies Affleck has currently signed up for when it comes to DC's Caped Crusader.

"He's contracted to do at least Justice League One and Two, so at least three times wearing the cape," Whitesell said, adding, "There's a script that he's written that is a really cool [Batman] idea, so that's out there as an option."

Batman v. Superman, directed by Zack Snyder, has grossed nearly $800 million to date, despite a steep decline following a record opening.

Following Tsujihara's turn on the stage at CinemaCon, Affleck and Batman co-star Amy Adams introduced a reel touting the DC cinematic universe.

The stand-alone Batman movie has yet to be officially dated, although there's rampant speculation that it will take one of the two slots Warners recently reserved for two untitled DC films; Oct. 5, 2018 and Nov. 1, 2019. The other could go to Suicide Squad 2.

"You get your first real taste of this expanding universe," Warners film chief Greg Silverman said in the clip.

Kevin Tsujihara appeared Tuesday at the annual gathering of theater owners to tout the studio's upcoming slate, including the stand-alone, which Affleck will star in and direct.

Warner Bros. chairman and CEO Kevin Tsujihara confirmed Tuesday his studio is moving ahead with Ben Affleck's stand-alone Batman movie, which the actor will star in and direct.

The studio mogul touched on the movie when appearing at CinemaCon, the annual gathering of cinema operators in Las Vegas. He touted the record-opening of Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, which teams Batman (Affleck) and Superman (Henry Cavill) on the big screen for the first time and launches the DC cinematic universe.

"It set up a great foundation for our DC slate, which includes at least 10 movies through 2020," Tsuijhara said. "I'm also excited to know that we will be working with Ben Affleck on a stand-alone Batman movie."

This isn't the first time the prospect of an Affleck-originated Batman movie has been raised. During San Diego Comic-Con last year, The Hollywood Reporter reported that the actor-director was developing a stand-alone Batman project with DC Entertainment chief creative officer Geoff Johns.

And in a recent THR interview with WME-IMG's co-CEOs Ari Emanuel and Patrick Whitesell, Whtesell reveals how many movies Affleck has currently signed up for when it comes to DC's Caped Crusader.

"He's contracted to do at least Justice League One and Two, so at least three times wearing the cape," Whitesell said, adding, "There's a script that he's written that is a really cool [Batman] idea, so that's out there as an option."

Batman v. Superman, directed by Zack Snyder, has grossed nearly $800 million to date, despite a steep decline following a record opening.

Following Tsujihara's turn on the stage at CinemaCon, Affleck and Batman co-star Amy Adams introduced a reel touting the DC cinematic universe.

The stand-alone Batman movie has yet to be officially dated, although there's rampant speculation that it will take one of the two slots Warners recently reserved for two untitled DC films; Oct. 5, 2018 and Nov. 1, 2019. The other could go to Suicide Squad 2.

"You get your first real taste of this expanding universe," Warners film chief Greg Silverman said in the clip.

Comparing this to Marvel and making it sound like BvS was unfairly treated is just crap.

Does this writer not realize that it is WB who said that if BvS doesn't make at least a billion dollars that they will be disappointed? Up the thread an article was posted that said the reason they may release the R rated version is specifically because they are disappointed in the sales and thought this would be a way to entice some repeat ticket sales. WB is who is expecting more sales....at least they are the ones saying it who matter.

Then there are all these comparisons to earlier Marvel movies and saying BvS came in post Avenengers and therefore expectations were lower for Marvel's phase one movies, and are higher now for BvS.

Again, that's wB's fault. They could have taken Marvel's path and made a Batman film, a Wonder Woman film, maybe another Superman film, or Aquaman....and THEN went big with BVS and Justice League. They could have lowered expectations and built up hype. But, instead, they wanted to play "catch-up' with Marvel and try to get it all done in ONE movie...which was IMPOSSIBLE to do. So, WB raised the expectations themselves - it had nothing to do with Marvel.

WB CHOSE THIS PATH. And, neither they, nor their fans want to admit that they were wrong. WB's bad choices, Snyder's bad choices, have NOTHING to do with Marvel. WB, DC, and Snyder own it - all of it. Instead of projecting your anger at Marvel, perhaps you should direct it at WB, DC and Snyder. They are the people who fucked up. If anything, all Marvel did was to show the right way to do things and they all absolutely refused to acknowledge it....that is not Marvel's fault.

As always, you miss the point Monker. Did you read it? You're the one spinning the article into making it sound like they are blaming Marvel (creative decisions or world-building is another argument in itself.) Not the case.

In a nutshell, it's throwing it out there that BvS's total's shouldn't be viewed as a failure because it didn't make 1 bil (there's other ways to make 1 billion that doesn't involve BO receipts) and how $800-$900 mil isn't nothing (like most are making it out to be and he's using the market Marvel set with Avengers.) The only thing I agree with is that WB and/or fans should lower those BO expectations. I was always hesitant on BvS making 1 billion. It never rode a positive wave of momentum for 3 years to do so.

Besides, the movie wasn't "Avengers". There was no big teammup of the Justice League or fast paced pizzazz action throughout. It was a platform to set up the future DCEU and raised more question than answers. People need to realize that BvS wasn't a response to Avengers (going straight to JL after MoS would have) but yet, Civil War was actually the fast track because of Batman V Superman laid out by Feige (Captain America writers confirmed this.) Proof is in the pudding.

It's true WB chose this path, and I'm glad they're sticking to it. And there's no direct anger towards Marvel. If you paid attention, I'm in love with the way WB is approaching their DC Universe because they are everything Marvel is not. Marvel is going to keep doing what they're doing (hats off to them) but I'm glad DC is going to keep doing what they're doing. But please, keep reaching and twisting everything into how everything is Marvel's fault. Comparing and accusing are two different things. To bad you can't tell the difference.

Monker wrote: Does this writer not realize that it is WB who said that if BvS doesn't make at least a billion dollars that they will be disappointed? Up the thread an article was posted that said the reason they may release the R rated version is specifically because they are disappointed in the sales and thought this would be a way to entice some repeat ticket sales. WB is who is expecting more sales....at least they are the ones saying it who matter.

I'm sure WB is disappointed in the sharp fall, but they already released statements on being happy with success. They know there are ways to hit the 1 Bil mark. BO receipts aren't the only way. Besides, I don't think a re-release will give BvS a nudge into the billion mark. They seem to be more interested in releasing the un-released footage when it came to the complaints of plot holes that people didn't understand. This was evident when WB released a clip from the Ultimate Cut to the public that garnered much attention.

Marvel did the same with Avengers. They re-issued Avengers into theaters for a one week release with the possibility to give fans a new opening and new "post credit scene" to have a better understanding of Iron Man 3 and flicks like Guardian of the Galaxy.

Monker wrote: Does this writer not realize that it is WB who said that if BvS doesn't make at least a billion dollars that they will be disappointed? Up the thread an article was posted that said the reason they may release the R rated version is specifically because they are disappointed in the sales and thought this would be a way to entice some repeat ticket sales. WB is who is expecting more sales....at least they are the ones saying it who matter.

I'm sure WB is disappointed in the sharp fall, but they already released statements on being happy with success. They know there are ways to hit the 1 Bil mark. BO receipts aren't the only way. Besides, I don't think a re-release will give BvS a nudge into the billion mark. They seem to be more interested in releasing the un-released footage when it came to the complaints of plot holes that people didn't understand. This was evident when WB released a clip from the Ultimate Cut to the public that garnered much attention.

Marvel did the same with Avengers. They re-issued Avengers into theaters for a one week release with the possibility to give fans a new opening and new "post credit scene" to have a better understanding of Iron Man 3 and flicks like Guardian of the Galaxy.

They must have been disappointed the film didn't snag the 2nd highest grossing movie from Titanic. It happens.

Now you two are arguing with each other. This is from the article that V posted above:

To put these numbers in perspective, Forbes reports Batman had an opening weekend of just $42 million, and when its third weekend rolled around, it landed $6.065 million. So as of now, Batman v Superman is dropping at the box office faster than Batman, and that’s after having an opening weekend nearly four times that of the 1989 film from Tim Burton. Even adjusted for inflation, Batman v Superman isn’t doing so hot when compared to Batman.

In the end, Batman v Superman will make some money, but it’s not going to be as big of a hit as the studio was hoping. In fact, the movie probably isn’t even going to cross $1 billion worldwide, and it will just barely cross the $900 million mark if the numbers keep up their current trend.

So the solution that Warner Bros. sees is to bring the R-rated cut of Batman v Superman to the big screen so that curious audiences will flock back to theaters to see the extra 30 minutes of footage on the big screen. After all, since The Boss just beat it at the box office, the studio clearly isn’t getting as much repeat viewers as something like Star Wars: The Force Awakens did.

As for WB saying they are happy with the success...sure, they may have said they were happy with the initial presales and the first week sales...but if they are saying they are happy with where this thing ended up, they are contradicting their statements before release and are liars.

Monker wrote:They could have taken Marvel's path and made a Batman film, a Wonder Woman film, maybe another Superman film, or Aquaman....and THEN went big with BVS and Justice League.

Quit. MoS and BvS are two halves of the same giant story.

You and maybe a few dozen others actually believe that. Everybody else looks at it as the prelude to Justice League.

Iron Man 2 also featured two new major characters (Fury and Widow) and gave them generous amounts of screen time, including a flamboyant solo fight sequence for the latter.

BvS is a "team-up" film, but it is not a TEAM film. There's a difference.

None of that has anything to do with anything. BvS failed due to bad story telling. What I am saying above is BvS is more fairly compared to Avengers because that is what they were going for. You two were even saying it was going to catch up with Marvel in one film. That was the goal - it failed. It failed badly.

Btw, we have TWO more movie before the TEAM film. One of them, Suicide Squad, is something we've never seen onscreen before: a cadre of DC villains doing a bunch o' shit!

And, everybody I talk to says it looks REALLY bad. Then they go and reshoot things to make it "less dark". This is probably the one film that should have been "more dark" since it features almost exclusively "villains". The entire situation proves to me that WB is just making shit up as they go and isn't truly interested in telling good stories...but big audiences. They don't realize that the reason TDK series was popular was because of good story telling - and the Joker....but not only because it was "dark", not because it made people think....it told a good story.

YoungJRNYfan wrote:In a nutshell, it's throwing it out there that BvS's total's shouldn't be viewed as a failure because it didn't make 1 bil (there's other ways to make

And, I am saying it was WB themselves who said they would be disappointed if it didn't make one billion. Making all of the comparisons with Marvel films is completely irrelevant. BvS was meant to be, and expected to be, a billion dollar film...those expectations were set by WB, not the fans.

Civil War was actually the fast track because of Batman V Superman laid out by Feige (Captain America writers confirmed this.) Proof is in the pudding.

And, Marvel is going to do what WB couldn't with BvS...create an awesome film that grosses more than one billion dollars.

And, YOU SAID a few weeks ago that BvS was going to catch up to Marvel in ONE FILM. YOU said it. You have said it for months now.

Monker wrote: And, Marvel is going to do what WB couldn't with BvS...create an awesome film that grosses more than one billion dollars.

Marvel is on their 13th film of their branded franchise. When Iron Man 3 and AoU can gross over a billion, you know its brand recognition. Batman V Superman is going to flirt with $850-900 after two critically panned films that are dour and dark, let alone a movie not geared towards children for repeat viewings; a movie that everyone was skeptical about since the day it was announced. I never went out on the limb of 1bil for BvS. There was way too much negativity surrounding the movie for 3 years. Void of humor and a movie that asks more questions than answers in a unorthodox style of storytelling, BvS is doing as it should.

And, YOU SAID a few weeks ago that BvS was going to catch up to Marvel in ONE FILM. YOU said it. You have said it for months now.

Correct. And I'm right. I also said no matter how Batman V Superman is perceived as a movie, it was Wonder Woman that needed to be accepted by the audience. Superman/Batman are known commodities. Wonder Woman was the blank slate. If the DCEU wants to succeed, Wonder Woman was always going to be the one that NEEDED to shine.

She is the most important key to that engine. If BvS did anything, it was get people excited for Wonder Woman and her movie (you even said this.) Hence, catching up. There's still two movies until we get to Justice League in this connected Universe (Suicide Squad; Wonder Woman) and you know you're catching up when the untouchable machine that is Marvel Studios are fast-tracking a Captain America movie into a Civil War flick as a response to BvS. Even in the midst of the awful reviews and BO disappointment for WB (disappointment; NOT failure) we saw Marvel immediately react by getting a move on their Captain Marvel film. WONDER what that was in response to?

When I said catching up, I didn't mean dollars. With people talking about Flash's flashback/Bruce's nightmare and Wonder Woman (thank Gawd), then DC is doing just fine only 2 films in. I'm most interested in seeing a DCEU film not directed by Snyder. To the GA, that's going to be a big difference.

Monker wrote: And, Marvel is going to do what WB couldn't with BvS...create an awesome film that grosses more than one billion dollars.

Marvel is on their 13th film of their branded franchise. When Iron Man 3 and AoU can gross over a billion, you know its brand recognition. Batman V Superman is going to flirt with $850-900 after two critically panned films that are dour and dark, let alone a movie not geared towards children for repeat viewings; a movie that everyone was skeptical about since the day it was announced. I never went out on the limb of 1bil for BvS. There was way too much negativity surrounding the movie for 3 years. Void of humor and a movie that asks more questions than answers in a unorthodox style of storytelling, BvS is doing as it should.

And, YOU SAID a few weeks ago that BvS was going to catch up to Marvel in ONE FILM. YOU said it. You have said it for months now.

Moniker, he was not talkin about money here, he was talking about WB in one movie (2 if you count MOS) catching up to Marvel in setting up most of the JLA in one movie, not taking a movie to introduce one new character.

The two Warcraft guys in the cubicle next to you don't represent the general audience.

Btw, everyone I've talked to can't wait to see it. Not everyone is sitting around thumb-up-arse waiting for Rogue One and nothing else.

Monker wrote:Then they go and reshoot things to make it "less dark".

Unfounded click-bait speculation. Ayer himself said the reshoots were for action, not Marvel-esque humor.

Reshoots are nothing unusual. The Force Awakens had them going on a couple months before they finished the movie. That thing wasn't even ready till literally right before they shipped it out to theaters. I'm sure you think the story & acting in that movie are better.

Fact is, DC failed to hit the mark with Man of Steel and BvS. YJrny has stated many times how the director isn't for wide audience appreciation. What kind of dipshits knowingly puts this kind of guy to run the ship for their biggest properties? Nobody in the theater gave 2 shits that Superman "died" at the end. There's no emotional attachment to the guy after 2 movies. It was a cheap ploy that no one cared about and failed miserably. I think if Cap or IM died in Civil War, people would care deeply. That's the difference between Marvel and DC. People are emotionally invested in the main Marvel characters. I don't know how can anyone even dream that DC will have hits with Wonder Woman, Aquaman or Shazam? B v. S convinced me that there is no competition between DC and Marvel and there never will be.

Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama

YoungJRNYfan wrote:She is the most important key to that engine. If BvS did anything, it was get people excited for Wonder Woman and her movie (you even said this.) Hence, catching up. There's still two movies until we get to Justice League in this connected Universe (Suicide Squad; Wonder Woman) and you know you're catching up when the untouchable machine that is Marvel Studios are fast-tracking a Captain America movie into a Civil War flick as a response to BvS. Even in the midst of the awful reviews and BO disappointment for WB (disappointment; NOT failure) we saw Marvel immediately react by getting a move on their Captain Marvel film. WONDER what that was in response to? ['/quote]

That's not 'catching up' to Marvel at all. Marvel is at a point in their story arc where they can afford to kill Avengers off for dramatic affect and bring new heroes into Avenger movies....I doubt DC is ready to kill off Aquaman, Superman, or Batman. DC's problem with comparing BvS to Civil War is that Marvel is making a FAR superior movie...even if everything you assume is true. Captain Marvel was rumored for a LONG time before it was confirmed....it did not happen as you are implying it. And, she's going to have a place in the larger story arc other than "Marvel's response to Wonder Woman". If she was such an immediate response to Wonder Woman, or any real response at all...they would already have cast her and had 'cameos' in the current films....just to get attention, and maybe steal it away from Wonder Woman. The fact that they are taking their time to get the character, the actress, and her place in the larger story correct proves to me that she is much more than a simple response to DC.

When I said catching up, I didn't mean dollars. With people talking about Flash's flashback/Bruce's nightmare and Wonder Woman (thank Gawd), then DC is doing just fine only 2 films in. I'm most interested in seeing a DCEU film not directed by Snyder. To the GA, that's going to be a big difference.

I didn't either. I am saying it in relation to the article that was posted which was saying it wasn't fair to compare BvS to a post Avengers world. The facts are that is what WB wanted, it's what you wanted, it's what the audience was set up for. It didn't deliver. BvS has much more in common with the first Avengers movie than Iron Man 2. DC is not doing 'fine'....you are in denial.

The two Warcraft guys in the cubicle next to you don't represent the general audience.

I don't even know anybody who plays Warcraft, or I assume WoW is what you mean. And, if I did, they would probably be more excited about the Warcraft movie than Suicide Squad.

Monker wrote:Then they go and reshoot things to make it "less dark".

Unfounded click-bait speculation. Ayer himself said the reshoots were for action, not Marvel-esque humor.

Yeah, right. You said the same thing about DC being worried about audience reaction to early BvS showings and about it being "too smart" for Marvel fans. It seems to me that may have had some truth in it, and this probably does, too.